Ex Christians

[bigjimslade1000]

Comparing whatever Joseph Smith, the adulterer, and polygamist that was run out of town after town said to a few gullable people is in no way comparable to the experience that unites 1 out of every 3 people on earth. The fact that the bible has endured more incessant attacks, withering scrutiny, and persecution and yet has buried every critic to remain the most respected religion after two thousands years is miraculous. You claim it can be shown false. Pick your worst example and lets dig into it. (outside of it's .5% - 5% known scribal errors)

Generally when someone is done arguing, it's because they know it's a waist of time. And just because a bunch of people believe it, doesn't make it true either. If I saw something fantastic occur, like seeing sasquatch in the woods by myself and I came into town talking about it with no discernible evidence, would you then believe me?

 

[waitasec]

@waitasec In the mind of the observer... If it can't be observed by a number of people in a controlled environment or to a greater mass, than just a few people agreeing with each other... It probably isn't true. Joseph Smith for instance, was a proven liar. And what of the great disappointment? It doesn't add up as truth for me, especially when the track record is so inconsistent with observable reality. It isn't confined to just christianity but I like using christianity as an example. It's easier when you're more familiar with the people.

which brings me to this thought...
i agree, inorder for anything, including ones own personal experience to be verified as evidence as something that should be applied to others, the experience would have to be shared empirically...which is why we find those who claim to be born again telling others they were never born again to begin with since the experiences are ultimately subjective...

 

[1robin]

Generally when someone is done arguing, it's because they know it's a waist of time. And just because a bunch of people believe it, doesn't make it true either.

This has nothing to do with a bokk that has not been shown (outside of scribal error) to have made a single verifiable false claim. In fact it has 25,000 verifiable historical claims.

If I saw something fantastic occur, like seeing sasquatch in the woods by myself and I came into town talking about it with no discernible evidence, would you then believe me?

Not unless you had a book that contains what experts have termed perfect historical, and reliable textual attestation of bigfoot witnessed with perfect consistency by hundreds over the course of thousands of years. If that book also contained thousands of perfectly fullfilled prophecies, correct but unknown scientific claims, philisophic consistency, perfect explanitory scope and power, and was found reliable by a large portion of the most critical and intelligent minds in history then you might have something comparable. Appeals to the obsurd by equating the unequal is a waste of time. This subject deserves better scholarship.

 

[waitasec]

 

[bigjimslade1000]

This has nothing to do with a bokk that has not been shown (outside of scribal error) to have made a single verifiable false claim. In fact it has 25,000 verifiable historical claims.

Not unless you had a book that contains what experts have termed perfect historical, and reliable textual attestation of bigfoot witnessed with perfect consistency by hundreds over the course of thousands of years. If that book also contained thousands of perfectly fullfilled prophecies, correct but unknown scientific claims, philisophic consistency, perfect explanitory scope and power, and was found reliable by a large portion of the most critical and intelligent minds in history then you might have something comparable. Appeals to the obsurd by equating the unequal is a waste of time. This subject deserves better scholarship.

Just because a bunch of religiously schooled "experts" agree on something, doesn't make it true either. I cannot buy, on someone's word, whether something is true or not.

 

[1robin]

Just because a bunch of religiously schooled "experts" agree on something, doesn't make it true either. I cannot buy, on someone's word, whether something is true or not.

When you find it necessary to misstate what my position claimed was it worth the effort? I never said they were educated in a religous enviroment. Many hated the bible, some very famous Christian's like C.S. Lewis, Dr Lingston's assistant, and G. K. Chesterton among many historians, and scientists began investigateing the bible in order to prove it to be garbage. They all wound up becomeing Christians because unlike many they let the truth define their position not the other way around. I did not suggest that numbers make things facts, I suggested they do make any effort to simply wave the hand and dismiss something inconvenient a seriously flawed effort without very good justification, of which preference isn't an example.

 

[bigjimslade1000]

When you find it necessary to misstate what my position claimed was it worth the effort? I never said they were educated in a religous enviroment. Many hated the bible, some very famous Christian's like C.S. Lewis, Dr Lingston's assistant, and G. K. Chesterton among many historians, and scientists began investigateing the bible in order to prove it to be garbage. They all wound up becomeing Christians because unlike many they let the truth define their position not the other way around. I did not suggest that numbers make things facts, I suggested they do make any effort to simply wave the hand and dismiss something inconvenient a seriously flawed effort without very good justification, of which preference isn't an example.

There are very few references in the bible which I can see as true. The rest is kind of washy and inaccurate.

 

[waitasec]

When you find it necessary to misstate what my position claimed was it worth the effort? I never said they were educated in a religous enviroment. Many hated the bible, some very famous Christian's like C.S. Lewis, Dr Lingston's assistant, and G. K. Chesterton among many historians, and scientists began investigateing the bible in order to prove it to be garbage. They all wound up becomeing Christians because unlike many they let the truth define their position not the other way around. I did not suggest that numbers make things facts, I suggested they do make any effort to simply wave the hand and dismiss something inconvenient a seriously flawed effort without very good justification, of which preference isn't an example.

**sigh**

i wonder what you consider to be a very good justification...

certainly not ones criterion for determining what is true or not?

 

[bigjimslade1000]

**sigh**

i wonder what you consider to be a very good justification...

certainly not ones criterion for determining what is true or not?

It seems to be a common theme among the demographic.

 

[1robin]

There are very few references in the bible which I can see as true. The rest is kind of washy and inaccurate.

Name two or three that can be verified and let's test your claims.

 

[bigjimslade1000]

Name two or three that can be verified and let's test your claims.

Read a book, other than the bible. Look into secular sciences and historical evidence.

 

[waitasec]

genesis 8:21

"every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood"

god is a drama queen.

 

[bigjimslade1000]

genesis 8:21

"every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood"

god is a drama queen.

Sounds like a control freak...

 

[1robin]

Read a book, other than the bible. Look into secular sciences and historical evidence.

As is the case every time your contention is so valuable to you that you will not risk it being challenged and proven wrong. I have over 190 sem hours in mathematics and physics. I have watched every secular or secular / theist debate the issue that I can find. I am currently reading Schroeder's book on biblical science and he is very un biased. I have just finished reading a secular book on old testament historic warfare. The more I read and research the stronger the bible becomes that is why I have no fear when I ask for a demonstration of the Bible's false claims, because they don't exist. They are just cherished false validations of a preconcieved preference.

 

[9Westy9]

This one seems to be in another direction. This situation you describe is inconsistent with the experience. If like me you were "sick" for 27 years and you kept being told to take this pill, but you rejected them until one day you saw some others that had been sick but had taken the pill and gotten better. You read up on the drug and decided it was for real and then you took it and a hour later you were well. To then claim that the drug did not help but something else did, and you now think doctors do not exist, nor the literature you read was correct, is inconsistent . Whatever the truth of your case is, either it or your desription of it is very strange.

There's more than one drug. Some don't solve the problem, they just make you feel better for a while

 

[1robin]

There's more than one drug. Some don't solve the problem, they just make you feel better for a while

There is not more than one that produce the experience I am discussing. If you have had the same experience from other sources then it must not be what I am referreing to. Or at least that is the answer that is consistent with the words spoken by the person who is the reason for the experience. There is a world full of false drugs that do not treat the cause only the symptoms (psychology, meditation, false religion, actual drugs, etc....). The one I am talking about does attack the cause but also requires cooperation to be fully effective.

 

[9Westy9]

There is not more than one that produce the experience I am discussing. If you have had the same experience from other sources then it must not be what I am referreing to. Or at least that is the answer that is consistent with the words spoken by the person who is the reason for the experience. There is a world full of false drugs that do not treat the cause only the symptoms (psychology, meditation, false religion, actual drugs, etc....). The one I am talking about does attack the cause but also requires cooperation to be fully effective.

It sounds like you're preaching at me now

 

[1robin]

It sounds like you're preaching at me now

Really, didn't mean to. It is a little hard to defend the bible without sounding theological. I sympathise with how hard it is to cut through all the flack that surrounds these issues even though I think I have done so for the most part. Is there some thing in particular that you found unjustified or just the tone?

 

[9Westy9]

Really, didn't mean to. It is a little hard to defend the bible without sounding theological. I sympathise with how hard it is to cut through all the flack that surrounds these issues even though I think I have done so for the most part. Is there some thing in particular that you found unjustified or just the tone?

The main problem was this here

"There is a world full of false drugs that do not treat the cause only the symptoms (psychology, meditation, false religion, actual drugs, etc....). The one I am talking about does attack the cause but also requires cooperation to be fully effective."

 

[1robin]

The main problem was this here

"There is a world full of false drugs that do not treat the cause only the symptoms (psychology, meditation, false religion, actual drugs, etc....). The one I am talking about does attack the cause but also requires cooperation to be fully effective."

I am lost in all the symbology. Are we talking about literal drugs or a religion here? Either way is fine I have had considerable experience with both in the past.